The question is not whether any source is 100% accurate. Of course there is no such source. People make mistakes.
I wasn't talking about mistakes. I was talking about outright bias against a worldview that I have (or that any other FReeper has here).
Walk into a library, any public library anywhere in the country, and you will find so much bias that it will make your head spin and I'm not talking about mistakes.
As I said before, if you find it to be problematic for you to sort out these bits of information (the bias) from the othe material -- then you should stay out of libararies, too... :-)
The question is whether a given source is even *trying* to be reasonably accurate.
I find that Wikipedia is over 99% accurate and correct and without significant bias to my own positions in things that count for myself and my positions. So, I don't have a problem with Wikipedia.
I don't have problems with public libraries either, and someone can walk in there and "be infected" with so much bias, it would make one's head spin in circles... LOL...
The problem is not the repository of information that you go to... the real problem and issue to deal with is one's "skill set" in being able to deal with the information that you have at your hands. And with Wikipedia, I find less problems than I would find at my public library.
I'm not about to throw out public libraries and I'm not about to throw out Wikipedia either... :-)
You rambled on about percentages and weighting, apparently laboring under the misconception that you had a point. Here’s why you didn’t: A given 130 words, or 15 to 20 words in multiple passages, can create a justified suspicion that the writer or publisher was not even *trying* to be accurate.
An experienced reader doesn’t need a huge amount of evidence to state with confidence and accuracy that a given writer or publication is or is not trying to be as honest and truthful as possible.
To put that another way, some people are biased toward the truth, with the result that their bias only leads them to become increasingly truthful and accurate. Leftists are biased toward pushing leftism, and believe themselves completely justified and blameless WRT any lie, distortion, or omission committed in that cause.
Let me tell you one key difference in the information you may get in the library, in the form of books, versus the encyclopedic information you can get.
When you're dealing with an author of a single book, he will carry a certain "worldview" (which is his bias, good or bad) throughout the entire book. Now, a lot of the information in the book may not be affected one way or another by that bias, but some of the information there may be. So, even if that author is biased in a way that goes against your "worldview" -- there is always good information that is usable, even by that author.
But, the main point is that the bias is carried throughout that book.
Now.., in encyclopedic information, you have a large collection of authors and their biases don't carry over from one article to the next article. Those various articles in the encyclopedic information sources -- are like "mini-books" (if you will) in that they have inherent biased in thos particular articles and perhaps throughout the article -- but another article is like another [mini-] book. You get something different and someone different in that other article.
Going further with this -- with Wikipedia, not even the individual articles, themselves, are carrying a consistent "bias" throughout the article -- and that's because even the articles themselves in Wikipedia are the combination of individual words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs -- each one formulated by a different person who helps put it together.
That means that with articles on Wikipedia, that various pieces of information and words and phrases can be changed and corrected and inserted -- with the proper attribution to outside souces that back up that attribution.
So, the Wikipedia articles are like "mini-libraries" in that they carry a mixture of voices and sources and biases and information -- all inside just one article, itself.
There is no "one author" for the information contained within a single article. An article may start out that way... in that just one person starts something off, for the first piece of information inserted in Wikipedia, on a particular piece of information that is going to be assembled into an article. But, it soon is joined by others who insert and modify and adjust and add sources and more information to it. As it goes along, it becomes more and more diverse and the article ends up including various sides and views on the same issue.
It's like getting a "mini-library" of information, contained in one article, and from various sources and various authors and various viewpoints. Of course, that's a natural extension of the idea of "encyclopedic information" -- which is what Wikipedia is all about.
If you can’t look at that Mao article and make that call, well, sorry about that, Sparky. You should hang around with people who can.
As I said before, I don't lack the skill set to deal with it... LOL...
But, by all means, if you do lack the skill set to deal with it, then please... stay away from it. I wouldn't want you to ruin your life... :-)
“You see..., I learned how to sort those things out. I would suggest you learn that skill and you’ll live a more productive life...”
Decided to drop back five and punt, eh?
Before you were claiming that the bias doesn’t exist. Now you’ve dropped that and adopted an entirely new position: it’s there, but Star Traveler can deal with it.
I doubt it. You can’t even keep your own position straight.
Waste of bandwidth. Out of here.